That shouldn’t matter. Compelled speech is compelled speech.
If a cake seller will sell a cake that says “congratulations to the happy couple” to a straight couple, then they should be required by law to sell such a cake to a gay couple. If they want to have standards, those standards can’t depend on who they’re selling to.
Your “SJW” silliness is not worth a response (“tyranny”? What a joke! You do realize that gay people were routinely brutalized by American society and institutions until recently, right? Brutality is tyranny. Not cake-making requirements). If you just want to spread right wing memes, then there’s not much point to actually discussing things with you.
There’s not much point in discussion if I won’t agree that compelled speech is OK or if others don’t see compelled speech as tyranny.
Requiring them to sell to anyone regardless of sexual orientation isn’t compelling any speech.
And when you use silly right wing memology like SJW, you might get called out for it.
That the things you’re imagining and are using as rationalizations have never actually happened and never will suggest that they belong in the realm of bad analogies, false dichotomies, slippery slopes, and the general product of overactive imaginations fueled by a particular agenda rather than sound reasoning.
I don’t think you understand what a “human right” is. It is not, among other things, the right to not be inconvenienced.
On the first point, as a practical matter it can be very difficult or impossible to satisfy the former without having the latter, a protected group. This is precisely why protected groups exist, not because of some inexplicable favoritism.
On the second point, another case of very bad reasoning. First of all, this is not some arbitrary political position, it’s about equal basic rights for all human beings. That should not be a position that’s particularly hard to understand and get onside with.
But even if it was something less fundamental, you may feel under some obligation to answer questions or justify your position if you’re going around wearing a personal T-shirt with some activist slogan or have a giant billboard on your lawn, but why would that apply to someone wearing a common team jersey for an organized sports event? If I was being paid to play in organized sports and for some reason my jersey had a patch that said “kumquats are delicious”, I wouldn’t have too many concerns about being interrogated about it. I could say “it was a management decision, ask them; I’m just a player”. I could say the same thing if a major organization I worked for supported some cause on which I was genuinely neutral. But again, it’s hard to imagine being neutral on a fundamental matter of human rights. So your argument fails on two grounds.
WTF? You gave up a ‘lucrative business’ because you refused to do business with certain people and you consider than a nightmare of tyranny?
There’s just so much wrong with that thinking and entitlement. 
Unfortunately for you, the Supreme Court disagrees with you on the matter of compelled speech when there is a significant societal interest at stake. One example is the mandatory warning labels on tobacco products. Another is the labeling of certain alcohol products. A few other clear-cut examples:
Mandatory student fees to support campus groups including environmental and LGBT groups
Mandatory fees requiring beef producers to contribute to research and advertising programs
Must-carry rules for cable television providers, who were already ruled to be protected by the First Amendment against coercive speech
For something that just shouldn’t matter, you are bending over backwards to avoid answering the question.
Not having a job is more than an inconvenience when all I want to do is the activity that I am being paid for. Or does the JD say, “Expert soccer player and Social Activist”.
Sure you can. You get treated the same was as me. If you aren’t then fix whatever the causes are for you not being treated that way. No need to place people into groups other than one group called ‘people’.
I’m onside with it. So are you. Then why force me to wear a patch? To prove it?
Because I work for that organization. I represent them and they represent me. If they choose to promote some political view that has no relation to what their purpose is, then it causes conflict.
= bigot.
It is one thing for them to support it and them telling me I have to support it by being a human billboard.
I’m not neutral. I want to play soccer, not talk, worry, support, what have you, about things not related to soccer. I’m sure there are groups that support those other things that if I want to participate in require me to wear clothes supporting that activity, or attend events such as protests.
Compelled speech?
Does the cake say “I, your cake baker, want to fuck you up the ass” ? Cause that sure would be compelled speech, and nobody should have to do that.
But if the cake says “James and Martin” and has hearts or wedding rings? What are you complaining about?
One has to wonder why it’s only bakers, I think. What about the bankers giving gays couples mortgages? Car dealers selling gay couples cars? Drugstores selling them condoms? Groceries selling them food?
Isn’t it a little suspect that of the entire Christian, non gay marriage supporters it’s only bakers that have an issue? Everybody else seems to do business with them without fearing their commerce will imply complicity to their God.
Perhaps the solution should be you’re allowed to discriminate ONLY if you post a declaration on your storefront that such is your position. If you’re cool with denying customers service due to your beliefs then you should have no problem proudly proclaiming them.
What’s that? You don’t want to be discriminated against because of your personal beliefs? When you want to discriminate against others that’s the chance you take, that it may be returned in kind.
Just a suggestion, of course.
Perhaps a better solution would be for the bigoted bakers to be deported to Iran or some other regime where they will feel more at home.
Definitely true, and that’s why somebody refusing to hire you, or firing you, just for being of a particular race or religion or skin color or sexual preference, is indeed a basic human rights issue. However, your manager refusing to let you wear a cone-shaped purple hat with a propeller on top when talking to his business’s major clients is NOT a human rights issue. Neither is your manager’s insistence on your wearing a suit and tie in those circumstances, even if you’re of a hippie persuasion and find it offensive to wear the uniform of “the man”.
And, I would hasten to add, neither is your manager’s insistence that you conform to the company’s code of ethics in the treatment of customers and colleagues and promulgate and enforce that code of ethics personally and among your direct reports. That doesn’t violate your human rights, either. Because things are so constituted in civilized societies that if a bigot happens to hate women, blacks, gays, Hispanics, Irishmen, and Jews with the fiery hatred of a thousand suns, the bigot’s feeling that his rights are being trampled by having to support and promulgate principles of equality is, in fact, solely the bigot’s problem.
That’s a wonderful philosophy, slightly undermined by the fact that when it comes to entrenched bigotry like racism and homophobia, it has never worked anywhere, not at any time or any place, ever, without concerted proactive measures in law and activism to promulgate a critical mass of broad social awareness and drive societal change – exactly the things you’re opposing.
There are two issues here, one obvious, one hidden.
Obvious: not wanting to serve a customer because the customer has a habit that the server doesn’t want to develop.
Hidden: the server’s reason for not wanting to develop the habit is in fact not a valid reason anyway. Not only do they have no right to discriminate, they also have no good reason. Their religion is invalid as religion, not just as social policy.
Wearing a suit and tie is part of the work uniform for many business. An employer making you wear a pin supporting the Palestinians/Israelis, may not be. If I choose to wear such pins, then that is my choice. My employer can ask me to not wear it at work.
An employer can enforce rules that say I have to treat customers equally even if I hate them and then fire me if I don’t comply with those rules. But he shouldn’t be able to force me to promote something I disagree with, again not work related. I’m not sure why this is a difficult concept?
I’m opposing an employer forcing me, at the risk of my job, to support a political cause, no matter how noble it may be, that has no relationship to that job. I am NOT opposing people’s rights to promote that cause outside of that work relationship. I’d even support an employer allowing a player to put an emblem representing the cause they want to support on their jersey (or none at all). As most employment contracts have something in them that says the employee should not do things that reflect badly on the employer, that should prevent any swastikas from showing up.
Also (obviously) none of these so-called “Christians” would ever eat non-kosher food, or work in a place that sells or serves it, and obviously they would never do a lick of work (definitely no cooking, hopefully not even wiping a table or touching a light switch) on Saturday, because Saturday is the Sabbath.
But what they would have to do (because Jesus) is eat with hookers and thieves in preference to eating with the good people, and (because Jesus) drink wine and make sure there’s lots of extra wine for everybody, and (because Jesus) love everybody, not just their own in-group.
Wait - Jesus preferred to eat with the hookers and thieves, because they are closer to God than the good people (I know it’s stupid, Jesus said it, I didn’t) - but these people won’t make a wedding cake?
When pressed on the subject of marriage, Jesus said who you married on earth doesn’t matter after you get to heaven anyway. The context was admittedly different, but still, he certainly did not go on about the holiness of marriage.
Gay marriage used to be a political cause. It isn’t anymore. It’s a law.
Marriage is also not a religious ceremony, it’s a civil proceeding. The reason you can get married without clergy but can’t get married without signing the marriage register is that the government owns and defines marriage, and the church service is tacked on for show - not the other way around. It has always been this way - that is not a new thing.
You’re pleading conscience, but it’s you whose point of view is unconscionable. It’s just bigotry, just discrimination - there is no valid religious belief behind what you’re asking for. Sure you can quote an isolated nonsensical verse here and there, but I can quote back to you major chunks of the Bible including direct quotations from Jesus that rip your argument to shreds. You’re not acting like a Christian, just acting like a bigot who is suddenly realizing nobody supports your bigotry anymore.
So should the government compel Marc Jacobs to dress Melania Trump should she request that service?
He could not deny her the same service that he would give anyone else because of her membership in protected classes, if that is what you are asking.
If you are asking anything else, it is utterly irrelevant to this thread.